Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed - Page 17

usog · #**321** Posted **Oct 23, 2009, 5:06 AM**

The reason why buses are little-used in surrey compared to cars has to do with the quality of service we're getting. The main thing is that surrey is so big and yet we have little or no express/faster service within the city, especially between exchanges. It takes upwards of 20-30 minutes just to get from Surrey Central to Newton on the 321, especially during rush hour, and an hour+ to get from Surrey Central to Langley on the 501. If you drove, the times would be half that.

And don't say ridership on routes are low, especially on the ones that travel between town centers, since lately I've been seeing Sorry, Bus full on a daily basis on routes like the 320 and 321. Hub and spoke is nice, but it would be helpful to connect between hubs with decent service. Just a few thoughts from a person that transits within surrey pretty much daily.

Spork · #**322** Posted **Oct 23, 2009, 6:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by usog

The reason why buses are little-used in surrey compared to cars has to do with the quality of service we're getting. The main thing is that surrey is so big and yet we have little or no express/faster service within the city, especially between exchanges. It takes upwards of 20-30 minutes just to get from Surrey Central to Newton on the 321, especially during rush hour, and an hour+ to get from Surrey Central to Langley on the 501. If you drove, the times would be half that.

And don't say ridership on routes are low, especially on the ones that travel between town centers, since lately I've been seeing Sorry, Bus full on a daily basis on routes like the 320 and 321. Hub and spoke is nice, but it would be helpful to connect between hubs with decent service. Just a few thoughts from a person that transits within surrey pretty much daily.

I think that the problem is that these routes stop so frequently. During all hours but rush hour, I believe that this is not due to traffic, but to the relatively spread out "density" of Surrey. KGH should see much better transit once the 399 BRT is implemented after the Olympics. This will allow busier stops to be almost eliminated from the 321, which can be relegated to local service akin to the 99/9 situation along Broadway.

WarrenC12 · #**323** Posted **Oct 23, 2009, 1:45 PM**

I agree with Spork, and look at it from Translink's perspective. Do you make more routes in Surrey when the existing ones are 25% full, or do you add more frequency to buses that are overcrowded already in Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, etc.

Chicken vs. Egg. But I do like the idea of all major arterial roads having B-Line or RapidBus type routes.

Vancouver_Highrise · #**324** Posted **Dec 9, 2009, 10:48 PM**

Any news on this? Havn't heard much..

I saw this on fb...

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gi...9497056&ref=nf

Distill3d · #**325** Posted **Dec 9, 2009, 11:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vancouver_Highrise

Any news on this? Havn't heard much..

I saw this on fb...

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gi...9497056&ref=nf

58 people...thats going to get someone's attention...LOL

Canadian Mind · #**326** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 12:37 AM**

Is it a new group? Cause when I looked at it there was 112 folks.

Windex · #**327** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 1:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Is it a new group? Cause when I looked at it there was 112 folks.

146 now, so I'm going to hazard a guess and say yes.

deasine · #**328** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 1:05 AM**

Meh... I'm not going to comment directly on the group, but I think starting a higher-capacity LRT system there is much more worth it than having SkyTrain. Is SkyTrain necessary in Surrey? Some sort of rapid transit is needed, but not necessarily in the form of SkyTrain. Is SkyTrain necessary on Broadway? I would argue so.

Distill3d · #**329** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 1:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by deasine

Meh... I'm not going to comment directly on the group, but I think starting a higher-capacity LRT system there is much more worth it than having SkyTrain. Is SkyTrain necessary in Surrey? Some sort of rapid transit is needed, but not necessarily in the form of SkyTrain. Is SkyTrain necessary on Broadway? I would argue so.

Subway is necessary on Broadway.

I do agree though, SkyTrain isn't necessary in Surrey/Langley. Something in C-Train-esque would be perfect.

nname · #**330** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 2:58 AM**

Depend on the cost though. The West LRT line in Calgary cost about 80M per km while SkyTrain Expo Line cost 92M per km in 2008 dollars. If the Surrey LRT cost as much as the Calgary one, then I would rather prefer SkyTrain extension since there's probably only a 150M difference for a line going all the way to Langley. If the LRT can be build for, say 50M per km, then it would be a different story, but AFAIK, most recent extensions in both Edmonton and Calgary LRT cost much more than that (except the stretch with no station).

deasine · #**331** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 3:38 AM**

I don't see the need of building a LRT in Surrey to C-Train West LRT standards, or even that of Seattle's LINK LRT. I have to point out something though: notice with these new LRT projects, a lot of these have its own ROW for most of the route, with few surface road crossings. We need something that can be further expanded in the future, but we don't need to initially build such an elaborate system.

nname · #**332** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 4:11 AM**

Well, LRT do require separate ROW though (otherwise it is just a streetcar, right?) But grade-separated crossings isn't really necessary. However, if they build the storage yard on the Evergreen large enough, the Surrey Line can be built without an OMC, which dramatically reduce the cost. The Cost per km for Millennium Line and Surrey Expo extension (all without OMC) is about 65M/km in 2008$, which is only slightly higher than Portland I-205/Pheonix/Dallas Green Lines at 50~60M/km. So with this, I would much prefer the Langley and Newton lines to be built as SkyTrain for better integration.

Zassk · #**333** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 5:17 AM**

Some branches of a Surrey line (e.g. to Newton and White Rock) could follow power-line right-of-ways, which would make the cost per km really low. I'm not sure if there is a good corridor toward Guildford.

As for Langley, does it need a zero-transfer connection to Expo Line, or should the priority be to connect it to Surrey?

nname · #**334** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 5:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zassk

As for Langley, does it need a zero-transfer connection to Expo Line, or should the priority be to connect it to Surrey?

Extend the Expo Line to Langley and Newton and maybe White Rock
Extend the Canada Line to Ladner
An East-West LRT Line for Ladner-Scottsdale-Newton-Langley-Aldergrove-Abbotsford
An U-Shaped LRT Line for Scott Road-Scottsdale-Newton-Langley-Walnut Glove-Maple Meadows
Another East-West LRT Line along 88th Ave in North Surrey
A North-South LRT Line along the 152nd from Guildford to White Rock
Extend the Evergreen Line to Maple Ridge

Now, Langley would have at most 1-transfer ride to anywhere except West Vancouver

Whalleyboy · #**335** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 5:32 AM**

In my opinion skytrain could work in Surrey. If you take away the farm land Surrey holds density up there with Burnaby.

But I think it would be better for Surrey to use lrt like the Brussels ones at first and use separate lanes for them. If future demands more then it can be build built. Using LRT could also help build central up as a better hub and city centre for the city.

Plus if skytrain goes to Guildford any time soon it will screw Surrey up for its true city centre area.

worldwide · #**336** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 6:50 AM**

fully off topic but i need to get out and explore the guilford area a bit. just driving through in the work truck on 152nd leads me to believe that there are some interesting nooks and crannys for me to explore.

Zassk · #**337** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 7:03 AM**

Ladner and Tsawwassen have nowhere near the population or density to warrant any kind of rapid transit. It would probably be best for everyone in Metro if South Delta kept to 0% growth forever (wishful thinking, I know). It would be wasteful and inefficient to divert a south-of-Fraser commuter train to South Delta, and the Canada Line has other much higher density neighbourhoods within Richmond to target in the unlikely event that it is ever extended. The only chance of getting rapid transit to South Delta is if, as I suggested in another thread, Massey Tunnel can be decommissioned as a roadway in the future and re-used as a rail tunnel.

WarrenC12 · #**338** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 7:16 AM**

I think it comes down to cost per km. Without those numbers, we can't make a real comparison. For the same price +/- 10%, Skytrain is the obvious choice.

LRT doesn't have to be completely grade separated, and has the advantage of being able to handle a bit of shared road or road crossing if necessary. With some ROW and some shared space, it will still make for a faster trip.

flight_from_kamakura · #**339** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 7:54 AM**

mm, i just read that the average cost of street level light rail in north america in 2009 came out to about 15 million per km, which isn't even in the same ballpark as skytrain. and since we're talking about surrey and these other places down there, it's hard to imagine it costing dramatically more than that (rows practically already exist with those wide streets, no need for tunneling, etc). so it seems like a pretty good idea on the cost, and those areas could definitely use the concomitant benefits to the streetlife as they built out (i.e. from a long term "let's make this 'city' a city" perspective, the street-lever lrt probably makes the most sense).

nname · #**340** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 9:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

mm, i just read that the average cost of street level light rail in north america in 2009 came out to about 15 million per km.

I don't know where you get this number from. Here is the estimated* cost per km for the recent LRT lines in North America:

Toronto Eglinton - 140M/km
<< Insert Canada Line here (@ 111M/km) >>
Seattle Central Link - 110M/km
Los Angeles Gold Line - 105M/km
<< Insert Expo Line here (@ 92M/km) >>
San Francisco T Line - 90M/km
Edmonton South LRT - 85M/km
Calgary West LRT - 80M/km
San Diego Mission Valley - 70M/km
<< Insert Millennium Line here (@ 69M/km) >>
Denver T-REX - 65M/km
<< Insert Surrey Extension to KG here (@ 64M/km) >>
Portland I-205 - 55M/km
Pheonix LRT - 50M/km
Dallas Green Line - 50M/km
St. Louis Cross-County - 50M/km
Salt Lake City TRAX - 35M/km

(* for 2005-6 openings, cost x 1.1 for inflation and 1.2 for currency; for recent openings, cost x 1.1 for currency)

I think the ones near the bottom are mostly street-level, and even those doesn't come close to 15M/km (unless, well, you build a line without train and stations). The last 3 have average station spacing of 2km or more; while the Portland one is using reserved ROW - so I guess that would be similar to Surrey Interurban LRT. The only thing I can find that is close to 15M/km is St. Clair in Toronto, and that is an upgrade, not rebuilding from scratch.